Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 17:15:47 11/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2002 at 14:53:45, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On November 20, 2002 at 11:52:49, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>My very first thought after looking through this was: >> >>'You note that Heinz R=2/3 appears to be superior to >>R=2 and R=3, but you don't include it in the comparison.' >> >>-- >>GCP > >I would disagree with such a conclusion anyway. R=3 always >works better for me in the year 2002 :) > >In 1996 just R=2 was ok. In 1997 i used a combination of R=3 and R=2, >and in 2002 such a combination is not possible. R=3 gives me a ply >extra compared to a combination of R=3 + R=2. *on average*. For me R=2/3 is superior to R=2 and R=3. The biggest problem with R=3 for me, is that it makes my search unstable. Some positions it even solves slower. Others it searches deeper but misses the right move. Bas.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.